BE IT REMEMBERED that, pursuant to Notice of Taking
Deposition, and on Wednesday, November 18, 1981,
Commencing at the hour of 9:45 o'clock a.m. thereof, at
the offices of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, One Market
Plaza, San Francisco, California, before me, CAROLINE
ANDERSON, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary
Public in and for the State of California, personally
appeared

DR. FRANCISCO J. AYALA,

called as a witness herein, who, being by me first duly
sworn, was thereupon examined and testified as
hereinafter set forth.

- - -

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, 919 Third
Avenue, New York, New York 10022, represented by DAVID
KLASFELD, Attorney at Law; and

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, 132 West 43rd
Street, New York, New York 10036, represented by SUSAN
STURM and BRUCE J. ENNIS, Attorneys at Law, appeared as
counsel on behalf of plaintiffs.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Before we get started, Dr. Ayala,
I will tell you I am going to be asking you some

5

questions about your testimony in this case, and if at
any time I ask a question you don't understand or that is
unclear, please tell me and I will try to make it clear,
and if you have any other questions or if you feel you
have to confer with your lawyers, let me know.

I would like to show you what has been marked as
Ayala Exhibit 1 in this case.

Tell me if you can identify that document.

A. It's my curriculum vitae and a list of my
many publications.

Q. And when did you supply this to the
plaintiffs' counsel?

A. Yesterday.

Q. Have they previously requested a copy of
your curriculum vitae at any time, to your knowledge?

A. I don't think so.

Q. You don't think so?

A. No.

MR. WILLIAMS: For the record, for you New York
lawyers, I will object to the lawyers at this time as to
the fact we have not been provided a copy of the
curriculum vitae until today, the day of the deposition.

Obviously, we have been unable to get publications
of Dr. Ayala, and I feel prejudiced in our discovery.

MR. KLASFELD: We had a conversation last week,
I believe, in which over the phone we gave you a list
of Dr. Ayala's three major recent texts and a number of
articles that he had written.

6

I apologize for not having got you the curriculum
vitae until this morning.

I think it would have been a tremendous example of
effort for you to have gotten through those three
texts and the articles by this morning, let alone the
articles listed on the 14 pages of Dr. Ayala's
publications.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Doctor, I notice you brought
some books with you today.

May I see those books?

A. Certainly.

Q. What is your current position at the
University of California at Davis?

A. Professor of Genetics, Associate Professor
for Environmentalist Studies and Director of the
Institute of Ecology.

Q. How long have you been in that position?

A. As a professor of genetics, since 1971; the
other two, since 1977.

Q. Where did you attend secondary school?

A. Madrid, Spain.

Q. What school did you attend there?

A. Colegio de San Fernando.

I will try to write it in Spanish.

Q. It's a Catholic school?

A. Yes.

Q. And then where did you attend undergraduate
school?

7

A. In Madrid in Salamanca.

Q. What was the name of the school?

A. University of Salamanca.

Q. And what was your course of study there?

A. In Madrid it was physics. In Salamanca it
was philosophy and theology.

Q. What degree did you receive?

A. These are names that you may not know.

Licenciate, which is comparable to a Master's
degree, and Lector.

In the university I went to it is comparable to a
Ph.D. in theology.

Q. So you have a degree similar to a Ph.D. in
theology?

A. Yes.

Q. Your Master's degree was in what area?

A. Master's degree in theology.

Q. And when did you receive these degrees?

A. 1960.

Q. Both of them?

A. I think so.

The Licentiate in 1959, within months.

Q. What area of theology did you specialize in
in your studies?

A. I suppose dogmatic theology.

Q. Could you explain to me what dogmatic
theology is?

A. The study of the Bible and the interpretation

8

of the main beliefs of the Christian Church.

Q. Did you specialize in any study of any
particular religious beliefs?

A. Catholic.

Q. What is the Catholic view of the origin of
the earth?

MR. KLASFELD: If you are aware of one Catholic
view.

THE WITNESS: The scientific view is accepted.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. As a Catholic, in viewing the
origin of the earth, how would you view -- how would a
Catholic view the Genesis act of creation?

A. I would say history of creation of man
which is conveying the message that God created man.

Q. But when you talk about God made man in
Genesis, does the Catholic faith and when you were
studying it in 1959 and '60, did they have a particular
position as to how that would have occurred?

A. Primarily, that was a matter for scientists
to decide ant to consider up to what point scientific
matters might be compatible with Genesis.

Q. Are you aware that there are at least some
Roman Catholics who would view and read the Genesis
act of creation literally?

9

A. I'm not aware of any theologians, and
experts, who will accept that today.

Q. You are not aware of that?

A. Of any theologian or experts.

Q. Were you aware of any expert theologian
experts in the Catholic faith that would have accepted
that in '59 and '60 when you were studying?

A. Yes.

Q. Who were those that you would be aware of?

A. I suppose Professor Teofilo Urdanoz, with
some ambiguity, and he was not taking a strong position
on the matter.

Q. But he would read the Genesis act somewhat
literally?

A. Not completely literally, but he would say
that the evolution case was not fully established for
human origins.

Q. Well, when he would say that the evolution
act was not fully established, then the converse of
that must then be that he felt that the Genesis act
was established?

MR. KLASFELD: Objection.

It's not clear to me if he does think that
evolution as established means anything else.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm just trying to ask.

THE WITNESS: Will you repeat it?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. You were saying he felt the
evolution act was not fully established; what would be

10

his opinion of the Genesis act?

A. He would not accept literally the
interpretation of Genesis.

Q. You say he would not accept it somewhat
literally, or there would be some ambiguity?

A. I said he accepted the literal message of
creation of man with some ambiguity; he would not
accept it literally but would think, and I am
interpreting somebody else's thinking -- he would
think that God must have intervened in some particular
way in the creation of man.

Q. That in some way then that there was a
supernatural hand of God, if you will, at work in
creation?

A. That's correct.

Q. Were there other professors which you knew
of or were aware of at that time, Catholic professors
and theologians, who would accept the Genesis act
literally?

A. No. Literally, no.

Q. Are you aware of whether the Catholic
faith, as theologians within the Catholic faith, have
ever accepted the Genesis act literally?

A. Not since about 1906.

There is an encyclical of Leo XIII saying the
Bible interpretation is not to be taken literally
since it was quite clear to theologians that were
contradicting literal interpretations.

11

Q. Just within -- in the Bible, are you talking
about?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you consider someone that is an
adherent to the Catholic faith to be a fundamentalist?

A. No.

MR. KLASFELD: You are not intending to establish
Dr. Ayala as an expert on theology?

MR. WILLIAMS: He has a Ph.D. in the area, so
perhaps we will need to. I don't know.

THE WITNESS: Don't quote me as having a Ph.D.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. You were going to say something
about the status of your degree. What would you like to
say about that?

A. The proper title is Lector.

Q. Lector?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you graduate with honors? Did you have
any honors in your Master's or Ph.D. in theology?

A. There is no such thing there.

Q. Do you have any children, Dr. Ayala?

A. Yes.

Q. How old are they?

A. 12 and 9.

Q. What are they, a boy and a girl?

A. Both boys.

Q. Where do they attend school?

A. In Davis.

12

Q. Public?

A. Public.

Q. Have they taken any science courses yet at
that age?

A. I think the oldest one this year has
started.

Q. What type of science course would he be
taking this year; do you know?

A. I don't know. I don't know what it is.

I know he is taking math and something called
"science." I don't know what it is.

Q. To your knowledge, has the subject of
origins ever been discussed in their classroom?

A. No.

Q. Are you currently a member of any organized
religious faith?

A. No.

Q. Have you been in the past?

A. Yes.

Q. What faith?

A. Catholic.

Q. And for what years were you a member?

A. Practically all my life until about '67, '66.

Q. What happened that you are no longer a
member?

A. My convictions changed.

Q. How did your convictions change?

A. You would need a psychoanalysis.

13

Q. Just explain to me what your convictions
were when you were a member of the Church -- and then you
left the Church voluntarily, I assume?

A. Yes.

I could not accept some of the tenets of the
Catholic faith.

Q. What tenets in particular?

A. The assumption of the Blessed Virgin, the
immaculate conception and many others.

Q. Many others.

Do you believe in a God?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you believe that God exists?

A. It depends on what definition of God you
have.

Q. What is your definition of God that exists?

A. I don't know that I am ready yet to give
you a lecture in theology.

Q. I would like to know just in a summary way
your conception of God.

A. Goodness in nature that can be seen as an
expression of the presentation of God.

Q. There is goodness in nature. Do you think
this goodness in nature has a personality?

A. No.

Q. Well, you have a Ph.D. in theology. In
terms of some of the labels that are used to describe
people's belief about God or the lack of a God, is

14

there a term that would more properly characterize your
belief? Is there a term in your mind that you would
characterize yourself as an athiest, an agnostic, a
deist?

A. I prefer not to use any of those terms.

I consider myself an independent thinker.

Q. An independent thinker?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, when you talk about goodness in nature
as being God, it's not very specific to me.

Now, I would like to have a more specific idea,
when you talk about that you think there is a God, what
your conception of that is.

MR. KLASFELD: Is that a question?

MR. WILLIAMS: That is a question.

Q. Can you be more specific?

A. I don't see how I could be more specific
that what I have said without engaging in a long speech
with lots of qualifications.

Q. When you talk about goodness in nature, are
you talking about the laws of nature as your study?

A. The reality of nature, the world that
exists.

Q. Do you believe that the laws of nature
were set up by some force or that they evolved by chance
or some other way?

A. Some other way.

Q. What is the other way?

15

A. As part of the reality of nature, the way
nature is.

Q. How did the laws of nature come into being,
in your mind?

A. It's part of how the world came into being.

Q. I think that is what I am asking you.

If you can answer my question, what is your own
opinion of how the laws of nature came into being, if
you have one?

A. Just part of reality. Reality exists.

Q. Reality exists?

A. Yes, and the laws of nature are part of it.

Q. They now exist. At one time did they not
exist?

A. I don't know.

That is a meaningless question to me.

There is no time before reality exists, so to me
It's a meaningless question.

Q. So the laws of nature have always been in
existence?

A. Since reality has been in existence.

Q. Is there any one writer in the area of
religion as to whether there is a God or not a God or
whether there is goodness in nature who would best
fit your own conception?

MR. KLASFELD: You are asking him to adopt
someone else's view?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Not adopt, but who would be the

16

closest?

A. I cannot answer that without many
qualifications.

In some aspects, some writers, and some other
aspects for other writers.

Q. If you need to qualify, I would like you to
answer the question, is there one writer.

A. No one writer.

Q. Is there one book which would most generally
characterize your beliefs about religion?

A. No.

Q. Are there several books? Can you give me
several books?

A. Not without doing some research on the
matter.

Q. Can you recall any off the top of your head
at this point without having to give me an exhaustive
list from the ones that you are now aware of?

A. Will you repeat that.

Q. Are there some that you can think of this
moment, some books that you have read which have been
influential to you in arriving at your own current
belief as to the existence of a God?

A. Yes, there is.

This is French. Le Phenomene Humain by P. Teilhard
de Chardin, The Divine Milieu by the same, L'Espoir by
Gabriel Marcel, Naturaleza, Historia y Dios by Xavier
Zubiri.

17

MR. KLASFELD: My understanding of the question is,
what books did he read that influenced him, not what
books does he agree with what is in it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Would you agree with the majority
of those books?

A. No.

Q. If you wouldn't mind, could I see that list?

It might assist me.

Do you have any personal code of conduct?

A. Yes.

Q. What is it?

A. Ethics.

Q. Yes. What is it?

A. I don't know where to start.

Q. You say "ethics." That is your code of
personal conduct?

A. I think my code of ethics is very close to
Christianity.

Q. Is there anyplace where your code of conduct
has been reduced to writing or something similar?

MR. KLASFELD: Have you written it down anywhere?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Or have you read it somewhere
that someone else has written?

A. No.

Q. Do you believe that a religious person can
be a competent scientist?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you think there is any necessary conflict

18

in being a religious person and being a scientist?

A. Not in being a religious person, no.

Q. Could you describe the role of the Institute
of Ecology?

A. To foster ecological research at the
University of California in Davis.

Q. Is there any statement of mission or purpose
which has been reduced to writing for the Institute?

A. Yes.

Q. And what would that statement of purpose
include?

A. What I have said more or less.

Q. That it fosters ecological research?

A. That is it.

Q. Please describe what you include in ecological
research.

A. The study of interactions between organisms
and the environment.

Q. Are you paid in your role as director of the
institute?

A. I have a minor increment to my regular
salary for that position.

Q. A minor increment to your salary?

A. Yes.

Q. Approximately how much is that increment?

A. As director of the Institute of Ecology,
$125 a month.

Q. How much time per month do you devote to

19

the institute?

A. About 25 percent.

Q. Is the Institute of Ecology engaged in any
research in the area of evolution?

A. Members of the Institute of Ecology are.

Q. Will you describe your duties as professor
of genetics.

A. To do research in genetics and teach
genetics.

Q. What coures are you currently teaching in
genetics?

A. As of this quarter, none.

Q. None this quarter?

A. That's correct.

Q. What courses have you taught in the past?

A. Evolution, genetics, philosophy of biology.
Those are the main ones.

Q. I think you told me that you had one other
duty in addition to those two.

A. Associate Dean for Environmental Studies.

Q. And what are your duties in that position?

A. To administer, guide and lead research and
teaching in the areas of environmental questions.

Q. And in that role have you done studies in
evolution?

A. That is an administrative role, yes.

Q. So there is no research you do in that role?

A. In that role, no.

Q. Your resume or curriculum vitae states that
you have research which has been supported by grants

21

from various agencies including the National Science
Foundation, the National Institute of Health and
Department of Energy.

A. Yes.

Q. How many of those grants that you have
received -- first, how many have you received?

A. Many.

Q. Well, could you give me an approximate
number?

A. On a year-to-year basis, 12 to 20, something
like that.

Q. 12 to 20?

A. Depending on how you count them.

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Doctor, you say you received
approximately 12 to 20 grants per year from
organizations.

A. Not per year. Altogether.

Q. And approximately, in terms of dollars, how
much money has been involved in all of these?

A. Research over all the years?

Q. Yes.
A. Probably one million dollars.

Q. And now much of that have you personally
received?

A. None.

Q. None of it personally?

A. No.

22

Q. Have you received some of it indirectly?

A. No.

Q. Well, let me be more specific.

MR. KLASFELD: Excuse me. When you say "received,"
do you mean went into his own pocket?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. In terms of like salary, the
grants would go to whom?

A. The university.

Q. The university would receive the money and
administer the grants?

A. Yes.

Q. And from that money you would be conducting
various research projects; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that is in fact part of your duties as
a professor?

A. Yes.

Q. So it is important for you as a professor
in your role at Davis to research projects; is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And approximately how many of these up to
20 grants have been in the area of evolution?

A. All of them.

Q. Dr. Ayala, I would like to request that you
make a list of those grants and the amounts that you
have received and supply them to your lawyers so they
can supply it to me.

MR. ENNIS: Do you have problems?

23

THE WITNESS: I don't have a problem.

MR. ENNIS: Could we limit your request to his
compiling that information from the records he has
available at Davis?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Approximately how many have you
had at Davis?

A. The majority of those.

Q. If you could supply those you have available
to you at Davis, I would appreciate that.

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. WILLIAMS: Now I want to state what my
understanding is concerning scheduling, because at no
time have I agreed to limit his deposition to 1:00
o'clock.

We have, due to obvious requirements of travel and
people's available schedules, we have limited our
witnesses' depositions. To my knowledge, I don't think
we have limited anyone to a three-hour deposition, which
is, in essence, what you are doing here.

I was here at 9:00 o'clock this morning, and we
did not get started until approximately 9:45, at least.

There is a difference between taking an eight-hour
deposition of a nonexpert and taking a three-hour
deposition of one of your main expert witnesses, and if
he has to leave, he can get up and leave, but I will
strenuously object, and it puts us at a serious
disadvantage, given the complexity of his testimony.

MR. KLASFELD: I only want to say on the record

24

what I said to you off the record that my understanding
of the conversation that I had with you about Dr. Ayala's
availability was that he would be available Tuesday
morning or Wednesday morning or Friday.

Our original agreement was that he would be
available Tuesday morning. At our request, that was
changed to this morning.

I understand "morning" in any sense of the word to
end by 1:00 o'clock, and I understood you to agree that
Dr. Ayala's deposition could be taken during that time.

As Mr. Ennis pointed out, Mr. Childs made a
speech for the record about the burdensomeness of our
deposition that extended four hours, and I understood
the point you made to the judge in the telephone
conference that these depositions that we were conducting
were extending beyond three or four hours for expert
witnesses and were unreasonable and burdensome.

If you want to take up what remaining time we have
now discussing this, I am happy to do that.

MR. WILLIAMS: If you can show me in the
transcript of what I said yesterday where I said that
to the judge, I would be most interested to see it.

Secondly, when you were talking about changing
Dr. Ayala from Tuesday to Wednesday morning, our
understanding has been all along that these were to
begin at 9:00 o'clock, and the inclusion of one is not
the exclusion of the other when you said he would be
available on Tuesday morning.

25

MR. KLASFELD: That is true.

If at the end of this deposition you feel that you
have been prejudiced, then we should talk about it
then.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Dr. Ayala, we were discussing,
I think, some of the grants you received, and you said
all were in the area of evolution.

Tell me as an example what is the most recent grant
you have received from one of these sources that you
previously mentioned.

A. Which one?

Q. The most recent one that you have received
and you have now concluded the work on.

A. I have grants in progress from all these
agencies.

Q. One that you have now completed.

A. I can't say off the record. I don't think
you understand how the system works, so you make it
very difficult to answer.

MR. KLASFELD: The most recently completed.

THE WITNESS: The National Institute of Health, a
grant for research on evolutionary genetics of
Drosophila.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. What were your conclusions in
this study?

A. I can provide you with the papers that
report the results.

Q. Do you recall the results?

26

A. It cannot be summarized in five minutes or
three hours.

Q. In other words, you can't give a brief
explanation of conclusions?

A. An explanation of conclusions --

Q. I don't care to hear the methodology of the
study.

A. That varies, electrophonetically hidden
variation at the Adh locus in Dornelanogaster, genes
do not interact multiplicatively, that there is
variation in gene regulation in natural population.

Q. What implication does it have for evolution?

MR. KLASFELD: Are you finished, Doctor?

THE WITNESS: Not completely.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Just a fair summary and brief
summary.

MR. KLASFELD: It would be impossible to do it,
given three hours.

You pressed for an answer.

THE WITNESS: That there is variation in gene
regulation in natural populations.

MR. WILLIAMS: What implications do those have for
the theory of evolution?

A. Very many.

It would take me three hours to explain it, at
least, or my whole course.

I encourage you to take it.

Q. What if you did not receive any grants from

27

any of these sources for study? What impact would that
have on you?

A. It would restrict the kind of research I
can do.

Q. Would it have any effect upon your standing,
first of all, within the university itself?

A. Possibly.

Q. Well, isn't it fair to say that if you
didn't receive any of these grants, that your stature
would be somewhat limited or be diminished?

A. Possibly.

Q. Have you ever applied for any of these grants
that you have not received?

A. Not in recent years.

Q. When was the last time that you applied for
one you didn't receive?

A. Probably '72.

Q. What was that?

A. To study the variation of a group of marine
mollusks.

Q. Why was it rejected?

Were you given a reason?

A. One is not given precise reasons. They are
critiques written.

The main one will be that the study will be
difficult to conduct.

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. If you did not receive any of

28

these grants or you ceased to receive any, what would
be the impact of that on your stature in the scientific
community, generally?

A. Probably none.

Q. Does the University of California at Davis
have sufficient funds to support the research that you
desire to do without the grants?

A. Yes, some research.

Q. It would be much more limited, would it not?

A. It would be different.

Q. You received your M.A. from Columbia in
1963?

A. Yes.

Q. In what area?

A. Zoology.

Q. And your Ph.D. in '64 in what area?

A. Zoology.

Q. What was the subject of your Master's thesis,
if you wrote one?

A. There is no Master's thesis.

Q. Did you have any sort of dissertation for
your Ph.D.?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the subject of your dissertation?

A. Effects of genetic variation on population
science in Drosophila.

Q. In what?

A. In Drosophila.

29

Q. Was that published?

A. Yes.

Q. Where has it published?

Is it listed in here?

A. Yes.

1965 Genetics.

Q. Have you prepared any reports for the
plaintiffs' attorneys in this case or anyone else
concerning your testimony in this lawsuit?

A. Repeat the question.

Q. Have you prepared any reports, documents or
any written anything concerning your testimony in this
lawsuit for the plaintiffs?

A. No.

Q. Have you had any previous communication with
the plaintiffs or the plaintiffs' attorneys?

A. Yes.

Q. When were you first contacted about
testifying in this lawsuit?

A. Two months ago, something like that.

Q. Who contacted you?

A. Mr. Klasfeld.

Q. And what did Mr. Klasfeld tell you when he
contacted you?

A. That there was going to be this lawsuit,
and I told him I was aware, and he wanted to know
whether I would be willing to participate as a witness.

Q. And then did you meet with him at some

30

point?

A. Yesterday.

Q. Yesterday was the first time that you had
met with him?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you previously written to the plaintiffs'
attorneys at any time?

A. No.

Q. Have you prepared any exhibits that you plan
to utilize in your testimony?

A. No.

Q. Do you plan to use any written exhibits or
charts or graphs, anything in writing when you testify
in this case?

A. I don't know whether I will.

Q. I'm asking you, do you plan to?

A. I have not as yet given it enough thought.

Q. Well, the thought that you have given it,
what is your present intention?

A. That it might be useful to show some slides.

Q. What slides do you have in mind?

A. Some that appear in my books.

Q. I would like to show you your curriculum
vitae and your publication and have you check the
books in which those slides could be found, and if you
have a description of the slides, please write that on
there, as well.

A. This book.

31

Q. Would you please name the book.

A. Modern Genetics, Evolving: The Theory and
Processes of Genetic Evolution and Evolution.

Q. From that book what slides do you have in
mind?

A. I don't have any in mind at this time.

Q. You have another book checked there.

Any slides from there that you presently have in
mind?

A. None.

I have three books.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. Three books.

Q. I assume you have none from the third book,
as well?

A. No.

- - -

32

Q. The list of witnesses which the attorneys
have filed in this case states he will testify
concerning the relevance of biology to Evolution and
Creation Science.

Do you know what opinions you are going to be
giving on that subject?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you tell me what those opinions will
be?

A. That the evidence today is unambiguous as
to the fact that evolution has taken place and that is
is very definitely established.

Q. When you say that it is unambiguous to the
fact that evolution has taken place, are you talking
about all scientific evidence; are you talking about
evidence in the area of biology or some other area?

A. All.

Q. All evidence.

Is there any evidence against evolution?

A. No, not that I know of.

Q. There is no evidence against it?

A. No, not scientific evidence.

That is what you are talking about?

Q. Yes.

When you speak of evolution, could you give me a
definition of what you mean?

A. Yes.

The fact that organisms change through time and

33

multiply in their kinds.

Q. Do you consider evolution to be a valid
scientific theory?

A. Very definitely.

Q. Could you describe for me what the criteria
are of a scientific theory.

A. Explanation by natural law of natural
processes which is testable, meaning by that, subject
to the possibility of falsification by empirical
testimony.

Q. Is that essentially the definition of a
scientific theory from Popper?

A. It's mine, based on Popper.

Q. You would not disagree with Popper's
definition?

A. Not essentially.

Q. Are there any assumptions in the general
theory of evolution?

A. What do you mean by "assumptions"?

Q. Are there any underlying assumptions in the
general theory of evolution?

A. Yes.

That the human mind is able to obtain information
about the external world, about reality; that the
human mind works according to the principles of logic
that are generally accepted.

Q. Does evolution include evidence of the
emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe

34

from disordered matter?

A. Biological evidence, no.

Q. We are talking here about the general theory
of evolution.

A. For me the general theory of evolution is
biological evolution.

Q. Are you aware that the general theory of
evolution does include, by most definitions, the
emergence of the universe by naturalistic processes
from disordered matter?

A. It does not [sic].

Q. Is it your opinion that the general theory
of evolution includes the emergence of life and nonlife?

A. Not as an integral part, no.

Q. Not as an integral part but it is part of
it, is it not?

A. No.

Q. Why is it not?

A. Because the evolution theory I have usually
been dealing with is the evolution of living things, so
living things existed to start with.

Q. We are dealing here with theories of origin,
are we not?

A. Is evolution a theory of origin?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. If a question arises as to what do living

35

things come from, what does evolution say about that?

A. From other living things.

Q. That either they had to come back from
something else besides living things or there have always
been living things; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. What is your opinion on that?

A. That they came from nonliving things.

Q. What is the mechanism by which you think
living things have evolved from nonliving things?

A. Natural processes.

Q. What scientific evidence are you aware of
which would support that evolutionary theory which
says that life emerged from nonlife?

MR. ENNIS: Objection.

I think the witness just testified that in his
opinion that is not part of the evolution theory, and
your question assumes it is.

MR. WILLIAMS: No. He said it was.

THE WITNESS: I said it wasn't.

MR. ENNIS: That is an objection as to the form of
your question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. You did state, did you not,
that it is your belief that life evolved from nonlife?

A. Yes, that is my conviction.

Q. What is that conviction based on?

A. On the evidence that exists that all main
components of living things can be synthesized by

36

natural processes spontaneously.

Q. Could you give me the scientific matter you
are aware of which supports that?

A. Experiments by Stanley Miller, experiments
by Orgel, Leslie Orgel, and by Urey and Margulis and
Ponamperuina and many others.

Q. Your statement was, I believe, that these
experiments showed that the possibility of being able
to synthesize that matter spontaneously; is that
correct?

A. Yes, the living components.

Q. It shows the possibilities, but does it
prove that it happened that way?

MR. KLASFELD: Are you using "prove" in the
scientific sense?

I think that Dr. Ayala probably has a very
scientific definition of what the notion of proof is,
and I am wondering in what sense you are using the word
"prove."

MR. WILLIAMS: I will leave that to Dr. Ayala.

Q. How would you define the term "prove"?

A. Well, proof depends on the context.

Empirical science is when, from a theory, you have
made predictions and these predictions have been tested
against empirical facts which are previously unknown.

Proof is not an absolute thing. It happens
gradually. So there are degrees of proof.

Q. I'm speaking now about the process of life

37

and nonlife -- is that what it is called by in Genesis?

A. That is one term used, yes.

It means "origin of life."

Q. Would you agree or disagree that the schemes
which have been suggested in these studies which have
been done on this possibility are merely suggestive
rather than proof?

A. Suggestive.

Q. Suggestive that it could possibly have
happened?

A. I do not agree with that.

Q. How would you characterize it?

A. As hypotheses that have been tested to a
certain limited extent.

Q. Do we know that it happened that way,
though?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of what the odds or
probabilities would be that it occurred the way you
have described?

A. In the general way that I have described,
I would say 100 percent.

Q. In a general way --

A. In the general way I have described.

Q. Is it clear to say that you think it
occurred by some sort of natural forces which were
random and which was a chance occurrence?

A. No. There were components of chance --

38

well, if that is a joint question, I would say no.

Q. There are factors of chance at work, though?

A. What are the factors of chance?

Q. I am asking, are you aware of any studies
you would agree with that would show what the factors
of chance were or are?

A. Yes.

Q. What would be those factors?

A. Random association between molecules by
well-known chemical interactions that have a component
of chance.

Q. Could you quantify the component of chance?

A. No.

Q. Have you seen it quantified?

A. No, not in any convincing way.

Q. You say you haven't seen it quantified in a
convincing way?

A. Not in any way that I would accept.

Q. Did these individuals, or do the studies
you have previously mentioned, do they quantify it?

A. Not in the hard science papers, in the
papers where they are reporting scientific results.

Q. Why in your curriculum vitae do you not
have your degrees in theology?

A. I'm sorry, what did you ask?

Q. Why in your curriculum vitae do you not
include your degrees in theology?

A. It's irrelevant for most purposes that I

39

use my curriculum vitae.

Q. Well, isn't it part of your curriculum which
you have studied?

A. Yes.

There are many other things which I don't include
there, as well.

Q. But are there any other advanced degrees you
have got which are not there?

A. Yes.

Business administration.

Q. What degree do you have in business
administration?

A. Something probably comparable to a Master's
degree.

Q. Is it another part of general evolution
theory -- is it part of evolution theory that this
spontaneous generation of life occurred only once?

A. No.

Q. It is not?

MR. KLASFELD: Excuse me.

Would you define "spontaneous generation of life."

MR. WILLIAMS: I think he used that term himself.

MR. KLASFELD: I don't believe that he did.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Let's put it this way. The
emergence of life from nonlife occurred only once, so --

MR. KLASFELD: Excuse me.

My point simply is that spontaneous generation is
a long-since discarded scientific notion.

40

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Is that right?

A. Yes.

It's ambiguous.
- - -

41

Q. Is the concept that life evolved from nonlife
only one part of evolutionary theory?

A. No.

Q. What does your notion of evolutionary theory
indicate as to how many kinds might have emerged from
nonlife?

MR. KLASFELD: Objection again.

We have had this discussion on the record before.

Dr. Ayala said that as far as he is concerned,
evolutionary theory is the change in life forms once
that is started and does not necessarily include the
change from nonlife forms to life forms.

So I have no objection to your questioning him
about this area, but I do object to your attempting to
characterize his earlier testimony in such a way as to
suggest what it seems to me you are trying to suggest.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Is it part of general
evolution theory that this emergence of life from nonlife
occurred only once?

A. No.

Q. It is not?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of what generally accepted
evolution theory would be on that subject?

MR. KLASFELD: Objection.

I don't understand the question.

When you say that it only occurred somewhere in
San Francisco, for example, and then spread all over

42

the world, or that it only occurred at one point in
time, or what?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, if it occurred in San Francisco
and it happened only once, it still happened only once.
That is my question. I don't think it's ambiguous.

MR. KLASFELD: You are right; it is not ambiguous
if that is the question.

MR. WILLIAMS: That is the question.

I didn't think I said "twice"; I said "once."

MR. KLASFELD: Well, "once" could mean a lot of
things.

Your question is, did it occur once in one place
and from there have all life --

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. My question is this.

Has it occurred just once and has all other life
evolved from that one --

MR. KLASFELD: From that one first molecule?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. -- from that one first emergence
of life from nonlife?

A. You are asking two questions.

One question is, did it occur once, and I answered
that is not part of evolution theory.

Q. You say it's not part of evolution theory?

A. That it occurred only once; that is right.

Q. What does evolution theory say about how
many times it did occur?

A. Nothing.

Q. So it says nothing.

43

Are you aware as to whether any authorities in the
area of evolution believe that life did emerge from
nonlife only once?

A. I will take your question literally, and my
answer is no.

Q. You are not aware of any authority in the
area of evolution recognized as such, not just by you
but generally recognized as such, who would agree with
that statement?

A. That is correct.

Q. When you talk about your definition of
evolution, could you repeat it again to make sure that
I have got it correctly.

A. It may not be the same words.

Q. I would like to have the same definition,
though, if I could.

A. Well, it will be the same idea.

Organisms change through the generations and
multiply in their kinds.

Q. With that definition of evolution, do you
feel, for example, that man has evolved in the last
50 years?

A. What do you mean by "evolved"?

Q. Well, I mean, has he evolved within your
definition of evolution; has he been, subject to your
definition?

A. Do you mean has he changed?

Q. Has he changed through the generations and

44

multiplied in kinds?

A. No.

Q. As I take it, there are two parts to your
definition of evolution, and one is that there is a
change through generations.

A. Yes.

And diversification.

Q. And diversification. Okay.

You can characterize that as diversification, that
one word, for that part of your definition.

When was the last time there was a diversification
in man?

A. Do you include in "man" homo sapiens, or do
you include all of the hominids?

Q. Homo sapiens.

A. There has been no diversification of the
species.

Q. There has been multiplication in kind, has
there not?

A. No, since homo sapiens exist.

Q. When we talk about multiplication in kind,
tell me what you mean, Doctor?

A. Divergence, and one species giving rise to
more than one.

Q. Could you define "kind."

A. Species.

Q. So your definition would include
multiplication in kinds but not within kinds?

45

A. It includes that, too.

MR. KLASFELD: I want to just point out to each of
you that "kinds" is, in a sense, a word of art among
Creation Scientists, and if you are using it in a way
that is different from how you understand Creation
Scientists to use it, you should make that clear to
Mr. Williams.

THE WITNESS: My definition was intended to be
sort of --

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Vague?

A. Not vague, but easily understood by a
layman.

Now, the more proper way would be to say
"multiplication of species"; is that correct?

Q. Multiplication of species?

A. Of species.

Q. Given your definition of "evolution,"
could you explain to me how it is testable?

A. Yes.

Where do you want me to start?

I could spend the next 25 hours on that.

Q. Since we have been limited to a 1:00
o'clock deadline, I have several other questions besides
this one, so if you could give me a brief summary, I
would appreciate it.

A. For example, one makes the prediction that
if one were to examine the amino acid sequences of
proteins of more closely related organisms, closely

46

related organisms defined as those which have a more
recent common ancestor, such organisms will have, on
the average, a greater similarity in the component
amino acids.

Q. What tests do you have in mind which have
occurred and which show that?

A. Examining the amino acid sequence of
proteins.

Q. The amino acid sequence of proteins?

A. Yes, and many others.

Q. Would you say that your theory of evolution
is observable.

A. A theory is never observable.

Q. Did Popper not include observability as a
criteria of a scientific theory?

A. Of the theory?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. Not of the theory of evolution but of a
scientific theory.

A. Any theory.

Q. What were Popper's definitions, what did he
include as his criteria of a scientific theory?

A. Very much what I said before.

The criterion of demarcation of what a scientific
theory is given by the fact that scientific theory is
subject to the possibility of falsification by
reference to the empirical world.

47

Q. Is the theory of evolution subject to
experimental method?

A. Very definitely.

MR. KLASFELD: All of those grants, for instance,
you were talking about before.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Do you know -- please excuse me
if I mispronounce his name, but do you know Theodosius
Dobzhansky?

A. Yes, I knew him.

Q. Is he now dead?

A. Yes.

Q. When did he die?

A. December 18, 1975.

Q. Are you aware that he has talked about the
evolutionary happenings as being "unique, unrepeatable
and irreversible," and that he said that "the
applicability of the experimental method to such
processes is severely restricted"?

MR. KLASFELD: Are you reading from a quotation?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

- - -

48

MR. KLASFELD: Could we have that quotation in
some kind of context so the doctor could look at it.

MR. WILLIAMS: I have it here, the quotation. I
am asking if he is aware of it.

MR. KLASFELD: And I am asking you what book or
article your source is from so that Dr. Ayala could
look at it to try to place that statement in its
context.

MR. WILLIAMS: First of all, let's see if he is
aware he said that.

MR. KLASFELD: I won't permit him to reply to that
question without your allowing him or telling him what
source it's from and allowing him to look at it in its
context and explain it, if necessary.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, whether or not he said
anything or didn't say anything is not of any particular
relevance until you know where it's from and in what
context it was said.

If you want to give him the source and let him
look at it and then let him say whether or not he said
it, and if he wants to explain its context, then that
would be fine.

MR. WILLIAMS: Your objection is noted for the
record.

Q. I am asking you, Doctor, are you aware he

49

said that?

MR. KLASFELD: Would you read it again, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. "These evolutionary happenings
are unique, unrepeatable and irreversible. It is as
impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as it
is to effect the reverse transformation. The
applicability of the experimental method to the study
of such unique historical processes is severely
restricted for" --

MR. KLASFELD: Excuse me, is this the same thing
you read before?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. KLASFELD: Would you read back to me what he
read before, Mr. Reporter.

MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't read exactly that before.
I was trying to save time.

MR. KLASFELD: Well, that is not what you read
before.

Would you read back the quote and read back the
question, Mr. Reporter.

MR. WILLIAMS: Don't read the question. We will
just go on and I will start again.

Q. First of all, let me ask you, did you
consider Theodosius Dobzhansky to be an authority in the
area of evolution?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware that he once wrote the
following:

50

"These evolutionary happenings
are unique, unrepeatable and
irreversible. It is as impossible
to turn a land vertebrate into a
fish as it is to effect a reverse
transformation. The applicability
of the experimental method to the
study of such unique historical
processes is severely restricted
before all else by the time
intervals involved, which far
exceed the lifetime of the human
experimenter."

Are you aware that he wrote that?

A. I'm not aware as to the specific words;
I am aware as to the content.

RSS Syndication

Antievolutionists Say the Darndest Things

Antievolutionists often express outrage over alleged incivility from those who oppose their efforts to evade the establishment clause of the First Amendment. But they have no difficulty in dishing out the abuse themselves. Here is a sample from the Invidious Comparisons thread that documents egregious behavior on the part of the religious antievolution advocates.

Darwinian evolution with its blind watchmaker thesis makes me think of a great battleship on the ocean of reality. Its sides are heavily armored with philosophical barriers to criticism, and its decks are stacked with big rhetorical guns ready to intimidate any would-be attackers. In appearance, it is as impregnable as the Soviet Union seemed to be only a few years ago.